BLU18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The case of BLU18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs involved an appeal against the refusal of Safe Haven Enterprise Visas by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA). The appeal was brought before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and centred on the wife's claims of sexual assault by Karuna group members. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the IAA had made a jurisdictional error by failing to consider or exercise its power under section 473DC of the Migration Act 1958 to interview the second appellant regarding her claims of sexual assault and whether leave should be granted to raise new grounds on appeal.

The court examined the principles governing leave to argue new grounds of appeal, referencing VUAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs and SZLPH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The court held that leave to argue a ground of appeal not raised before the primary judge should only be granted if it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so, and there should be no real prejudice to the respondent in permitting it to be agitated. The court found that the proposed ground of appeal had no merit and provided no justification for being raised for the first time before the court.

Ultimately, the court allowed the application for leave to rely on fresh evidence but refused leave to rely on the ground proposed to be advanced. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the first respondent's costs of the appeal.